On November 30, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Estate Of Damien Hart,
and
Does 1 Through 20,
Walls, Larry D,
for Professional Negligence Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
Kaveh Newmen’ Esq' (SEN 335793)
ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto)
Newmen Law, P.C.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
2107 N. Broadway Suite 104,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Santa Ana, CA 92706
2/2/2024 11:49 AM
Tel: (714) 822-1562
Fax: (714) 541-1 1 15
Attorney for Defendant Larry D. Walls, Esq.
\OOOflQUl-PUJNr—k
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Case N0. CIV SB 2226328
SHERRI L. KASTILAHN, Special Administrator
of the ESTATE OF DAMIEN HART, OPPOSITION T0 MOTION FOR
LEAVE T0 FILE SECOND AMENDED
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT; DECLARATIONS 0F
KAVEH NEWMEN, ESQ, TIFFINY
vs. WALLS, ESQ, AND JENNA
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
SUTHERLAND
LARRY D. WALLS, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Date: February 15, 2024
Dept: 825, Hon. Khymberli S Apaloo
Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m.
Trial Date: None Set
NNNNNNNNNHHp—AHHr—AHr—AHH Complaint Filed: November 30, 2022
OOQQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQQU‘ILUJNHO
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff Sherri L. Kastilahn, Special Administrator of the Estate of
Damien Hart, filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks leave
t0 amend the First Amended Complaint t0 add a claim for voidable transfer of assets pursuant t0
California Civil Code § 3439.04 and add the Larry Dean Walls Living Trust (sometimes hereinafter
referred t0 as the “LDW Trust”) as a defendant. The Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint must be denied in its entirety Without leave t0 amend, 0r in the alternative that the Court
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1
order the parties t0 Mandatory Mediation With all interested parties pursuant t0 Local Rules 409 and
410.
First, the motion is woefully inadequate because it fails to comply With California Rule of Court
3.1324. Further, the declaration accompanying the motion must be rejected in its entirety because
\OOOflQUl-PUJNr—k
the declarant lacks personal knowledge 0f the matters contained therein and it is replete With
impermissible hearsay. The motion is also procedurally deficient because Plaintiff has failed t0
establish that she filed a creditor’s claim against the Estate 0f Larry D. Walls (in light 0f the fact that
Defendant Larry D. Walls is recently deceased).
The motion should also be denied because the intended new Defendant, the Larry Dean Walls
Living Trust, would be prejudiced if it is granted in light of the fact that Special Administrator
Kastilahn is intentionally seeking t0 defraud this Court by arguing that the amended deeds serving t0
convey the real property previously owned by Larry Dean Walls to the Larry Dean Walls Living
Trust Dated February 29, 2020 were done Via fraud. Further, the proposed fraudulent conveyance
cause of action is defective pursuant t0 California Probate Code § 9000(b). For all these reasons, the
fraudulent conveyance cause 0f action is clearly brought in bad faith and merely t0 harass the heirs
of the Defendant and the beneficiaries of the Larry Dean Walls Living Trust Dated February 29,
2020.
NNNNNNNNNHHp—AHHr—AHr—AHH
Lastly, Plaintiff is wholly aware of the facts and allegations 0f the underlining malpractice
claim, the primary witness — Mr. Walls — is dead and as the Special Administrator t0 the Damien
OOQQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQQU‘ILUJNHO
Hart Estate, Ms. Kastilahn has access t0 all filings and court proceedings in the Probate matter(s)
forming the basis 0f this frivolous lawsuit. The totality 0f the circumstances, judicial economy, and
equity demand the Motion for Leave t0 File a Second Amended Complaint should be denied in its
entirety Without affording Plaintiff any further opportunity to amend and the Parties ordered t0
mediation Without further delay as there are limited resources in the Larry Walls Living Trust t0 fund
years 0f litigation, pay current creditors, and 17 beneficiary bequeaths.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Amendment of a pleading “is within the sound discretion 0f the court” and will not be reversed
by the Court of Appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Englert V. IVAC Com, 92 Cal. App. 3d 178,
OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 2
Document Filed Date
February 02, 2024
Case Filing Date
November 30, 2022
Category
Professional Negligence Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Kaveh Newmen’ Esq' (SEN 335793) ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto) Newmen Law, P.C. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2107 N. Broadway Suite 104, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Santa Ana, CA 92706 2/2/2024 11:49 AM Tel: (714) 822-1562 Fax: (714) 541-1 1 15 Attorney for Defendant Larry D. Walls, Esq. \OOOflQUl-PUJNr—k SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Case N0. CIV SB 2226328 SHERRI L. KASTILAHN, Special Administrator of the ESTATE OF DAMIEN HART, OPPOSITION T0 MOTION FOR LEAVE T0 FILE SECOND AMENDED Plaintiff, COMPLAINT; DECLARATIONS 0F KAVEH NEWMEN, ESQ, TIFFINY vs. WALLS, ESQ, AND JENNA VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV SUTHERLAND LARRY D. WALLS, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Date: February 15, 2024 Dept: 825, Hon. Khymberli S Apaloo Defendants. Time: 8:30 a.m. Trial Date: None Set NNNNNNNNNHHp—AHHr—AHr—AHH Complaint Filed: November 30, 2022 OOQQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQQU‘ILUJNHO I. INTRODUCTION On November 17, 2023, Plaintiff Sherri L. Kastilahn, Special Administrator of the Estate of Damien Hart, filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks leave t0 amend the First Amended Complaint t0 add a claim for voidable transfer of assets pursuant t0 California Civil Code § 3439.04 and add the Larry Dean Walls Living Trust (sometimes hereinafter referred t0 as the “LDW Trust”) as a defendant. The Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint must be denied in its entirety Without leave t0 amend, 0r in the alternative that the Court OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 order the parties t0 Mandatory Mediation With all interested parties pursuant t0 Local Rules 409 and 410. First, the motion is woefully inadequate because it fails to comply With California Rule of Court 3.1324. Further, the declaration accompanying the motion must be rejected in its entirety because \OOOflQUl-PUJNr—k the declarant lacks personal knowledge 0f the matters contained therein and it is replete With impermissible hearsay. The motion is also procedurally deficient because Plaintiff has failed t0 establish that she filed a creditor’s claim against the Estate 0f Larry D. Walls (in light 0f the fact that Defendant Larry D. Walls is recently deceased). The motion should also be denied because the intended new Defendant, the Larry Dean Walls Living Trust, would be prejudiced if it is granted in light of the fact that Special Administrator Kastilahn is intentionally seeking t0 defraud this Court by arguing that the amended deeds serving t0 convey the real property previously owned by Larry Dean Walls to the Larry Dean Walls Living Trust Dated February 29, 2020 were done Via fraud. Further, the proposed fraudulent conveyance cause of action is defective pursuant t0 California Probate Code § 9000(b). For all these reasons, the fraudulent conveyance cause 0f action is clearly brought in bad faith and merely t0 harass the heirs of the Defendant and the beneficiaries of the Larry Dean Walls Living Trust Dated February 29, 2020. NNNNNNNNNHHp—AHHr—AHr—AHH Lastly, Plaintiff is wholly aware of the facts and allegations 0f the underlining malpractice claim, the primary witness — Mr. Walls — is dead and as the Special Administrator t0 the Damien OOQQU‘I-PUJNF—‘OKOOOQQU‘ILUJNHO Hart Estate, Ms. Kastilahn has access t0 all filings and court proceedings in the Probate matter(s) forming the basis 0f this frivolous lawsuit. The totality 0f the circumstances, judicial economy, and equity demand the Motion for Leave t0 File a Second Amended Complaint should be denied in its entirety Without affording Plaintiff any further opportunity to amend and the Parties ordered t0 mediation Without further delay as there are limited resources in the Larry Walls Living Trust t0 fund years 0f litigation, pay current creditors, and 17 beneficiary bequeaths. II. LEGAL STANDARDS Amendment of a pleading “is within the sound discretion 0f the court” and will not be reversed by the Court of Appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Englert V. IVAC Com, 92 Cal. App. 3d 178, OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 2